I think Famke and Marsden need cameos at the end. It may throw a damper on a future Pheonix saga to see really old versions of Cyke and Jean, but they haven't aged much since X-3 looks wise. I'd like a scene where everyone is together again at the end. Maybe that would be a little anti-climactic for future First Class sequels though.

If they appear at the end in a teaser scene, then the next film is obliged to follow that up so it won't be another film in the First Class franchise - unless the past is where Jean and Scott reappear through all the altering of the space-time continuum.

__________________Show me an X-Men comic where Mystique is the leader and walks round all day as a bored blonde

If they appear at the end in a teaser scene, then the next film is obliged to follow that up so it won't be another film in the First Class franchise - unless the past is where Jean and Scott reappear through all the altering of the space-time continuum.

Depending on the manner of the scene. I am thinking an illusory image of an older couple with kids just after the film's climax, together with the other surviving X-men, showing that they have lived long, healthy lives, instead of their abrupt fates depicted in the OT. Nothing substantial.

I say that is anti-climactic, because if you want to feature Scott/Jean in future X-Men movies in their primes, such a scene would imply that those characters are in no danger regardless of the threat level in the next set of films.

That's why I would hold off on such a scene if they 1) plan on doing a third film featuring the recruitment of the classic roster. 2) plan to do future stories with Scott/Jean in their prime years, because the audience would lose the suspense of something bad potentially occuring to those characters. If the next set of films feature much older versions of Scott and Jean, an X-film where everyone is in their late 40's and 50's, then it would be acceptable to have the scene I described above.

Depending on the manner of the scene. I am thinking an illusory image of an older couple with kids just after the film's climax, together with the other surviving X-men, showing that they have lived long, healthy lives, instead of their abrupt fates depicted in the OT. Nothing substantial.

I say that is anti-climactic, because if you want to feature Scott/Jean in future X-Men movies in their primes, such a scene would imply that those characters are in no danger regardless of the threat level in the next set of films.

Huh?

Why would they want to show and older couple with kids?

They'll show the current X-Men, the ages they are now, surely? The cast as they would be if they decide to make an X4.

It's been almost a decade since Last Stand. You don't think had they still been alive they wouldn't have kids of their own by now? Again, you can pick up a story when those characters are middle aged as you mention, assuming they are ditching this First Class cast. Personally, don't think the original cast will be back for a long term commitment. But if you wanted to feature a story in the 90's with those characters in their early 20's, then it's best to avoid implications that they definitely survived the events of the orignal trilogy. And that would still piss fans off knowing their fates in X-3. It just depends on where they continue the story.

It's been almost a decade since Last Stand. You don't think had they still been alive they wouldn't have kids of their own by now? Again, you can pick up a story when those characters are middle aged as you mention, assuming they are ditching this First Class cast. Personally, don't think the original cast will be back for a long term commitment. But if you wanted to feature a story in the 90's with those characters in their early 20's, then it's best to avoid implications that they definitely survived the events of the orignal trilogy. And that would still piss fans off knowing their fates in X-3. It just depends on where they continue the story.

Well... No, I don't. They don't have to have kids. They can even have them have a six year old if they want but it's not a necessity. Scott and Jean being alive and happily married again is enough.

I think we're only going to get one more First Class movie after this anyway, and if Scott/Jean/Storm feature, we always knew they'll survive anything the film throws at them. It's not that big a deal. The same way we know Magneto and Xavier survive.

They'll probably show the X-Men cast of Wolverine, Cyclops, Jean, Storm, Rogue, Kitty, Iceman... and whoever else they want to, and leave that door open should they want to continue with an X4 as well as FC3.

I see the franchise being structured in one of these three ways below, following DoFP:

FC 3: Recruitment of the original roster. Magneto/Xavier on shaky terms still, but a new villain is featured here. Maybe Sinister to tie in with Scott/Jean.

X4-6:
Option 1: Magneto/Xavier succumb to old age. Scott/Storm/Jean are the new head masters. Their children are now the centerpiece. Similarly structured to a hypotheical SW: Episode 7.

Option 2: Save Option 1 for X7-9. Continue classic stories with the original roster using the cast from FC 3. Adapt new stories and depict never before seen villains. This is essentially a defacto reboot.

Option 3: Ditch the ****tyness of the First Class cast/characters. Pick up X-4 with the original cast. Get as many films as you can out of Hugh, Halle, Famke, James, Patrick, and Mckellan.

All three options are viable. I like option 2 the best, but you are retreading the original trilogy. Even if you go Apocalypse and whomever else, you potentially cover the Phoenix story again, X-Men vs Brotherhood, etc. Those are the best stories, but those characters were covered recently in the original trilogy.

I don't see why we can't have a FC3 and an X4. I mean, if Fox are talking their big, shared universe, it makes sense to me to keep both separate series going.

We'll definitely get a FC3 while Lawrence, Fassbender etc., are contracted. But with the big hype and excitement about the reunited OT cast, they'd be mad not to run with it.

Let's say DoFP blows up the box office. Did people like the 1973 take? Or did audiences/critics come out of it thinking Hugh and Halle still have a lot left in the tank? Where does the franchise go if Fox HAS TO CHOOSE one or the other?

Of course the sensible decision is to make another FC movie with the younger team in place. You just can't help but wonder if it becomes redundant to see these characters featured again, when they already had a trilogy. And maybe another trilogy to follow FC3.

And no, I don't think you can run both simultaneously. That would oversaturate the market and FC 3 would not drive the story forward. No one would care about anything else preceding an announced X-4, and FC3 loses all its luster.

Let's say DoFP blows up the box office. Did people like the 1973 take? Or did audiences/critics come out of it thinking Hugh and Halle still have a lot left in the tank? Where does the franchise go if Fox HAS TO CHOOSE one or the other?

Of course the sensible decision is to make another FC movie with the younger team in place. You just can't help but wonder if it becomes redundant to see these characters featured again, when they already had a trilogy. And maybe another trilogy to follow FC3.

And no, I don't think you can run both simultaneously. That would oversaturate the market and FC 3 would not drive the story forward. No one would care about anything else preceding an announced X-4, and FC3 loses all it's luster.

Let's put it this way, they have Jennifer Lawrence, It Girl, under contract. They will make use of that. Unless this is a colossal flop, a FC3 is a guarantee. Most likely the final film (I can't see Jennifer, Michael or James committing to many more films) so in my mind a FC3, followed by a return to the OT would oversaturate nothing.

Let's put it this way, they have Jennifer Lawrence, It Girl, under contract. They will make use of that. Unless this is a colossal flop, a FC3 is a guarantee. Most likely the final film (I can't see Jennifer, Michael or James committing to many more films) so in my mind a FC3, followed by a return to the OT would oversaturate nothing.

Then time becomes of the essence. If FC 3 is 2017ish, X-4 is 2018 or later earliest. Patrick and Ian are all over 70. Probably done after this film. The original cast is probably too old to continue doing more films at that point. So you could either recast everyone, or wait another 8 years or so (for the actors to age into their characters), and try to pull back the cast you scrapped together for FC 3. Neither of those options look promising from a success/likelyhood standpoint.

i think the original trilogy cast will be willin to return for some more films, patrick stewart for one wants to keep making more as he was worried they were bein replaced by a younger cast because of first class

__________________A Guest star on this Forum Since 2004

J.J. Abrams “We are standing on the shoulders of Episodes I through VI.”

Probably a new character or the characters who already appeared in First Class.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GuestStar2004

i think we could get at least 2 or 3 more films with the original cast, i doubt fox care about there age and im sure none of the original cast are gonna think im to old for this s**t

i still hope we get another first class film after this, don't waste the talents you have set up with First class FOX

I think the original cast has more chance to do another trilogy unlike the First Class because the original cast is bigger. Even if they don't bring back Ian, Patrick, James and Famke, they still have Hugh, Halle, Anna, Shawn and Ellen and their period is not set in the past unlike with FC cast, they still have to connect the events that happened in the movie with the first X-Men movie or else, it would just lead to continuity errors again.

Nor was that the context of the discussion/disagreement to begin wtih.

ME: But shes nowhere near as talented as Patrick Stewart and Ian McKellan are.

YOU: Ouch. Beg to disagree. That's all I will say. Guard, do you need to watch Aliens again? Gorillas in the Mist? The Ice Storm?

ME: Call me when she starts doing Shakespheare and the like on a regular basis. I dunno, in context, I thought that was a pretty clear reference to some of Stewart and McKellan's more impressive body of work. Maybe I was too subtle.

I never said she wasn't talented. I said she wasn't nearly as talented as those two. Those are two of the most talented actors of modern cinema AND stage. Two of the best of the best.

It addition to Sigourney Weaver's three Oscar nominations, she's also a Tony-award nominee with extensive stage work going back to 1971, and as recently as last year.

Now you may not like her work, but you can't discredit it. Because you would be wrong.

__________________”We live in times when hate and fear seem stronger. We rise and fall, and light from dying embers: remembrances that hope and love last longer. And love is love is love is love is love is love is love cannot be killed or swept aside."

Nor was that the context of the discussion/disagreement to begin wtih.

ME: But shes nowhere near as talented as Patrick Stewart and Ian McKellan are.

YOU: Ouch. Beg to disagree. That's all I will say. Guard, do you need to watch Aliens again? Gorillas in the Mist? The Ice Storm?

ME: Call me when she starts doing Shakespheare and the like on a regular basis. I dunno, in context, I thought that was a pretty clear reference to some of Stewart and McKellan's more impressive body of work. Maybe I was too subtle.

I never said she wasn't talented. I said she wasn't nearly as talented as those two. Those are two of the most talented actors of modern cinema AND stage. Two of the best of the best.

I find it very interesting that imdb has been very accurate with the actors listed on the movie, and now they have changed Halle Berre to official and still Cyclops aka James Marsden, Havok and Banshee are still indeed listed as rumors. Would it not be great to accounce havok and cyke at the same time

That Sigourney Weaver is not as talented as Patrick Stewart and Ian McKellan.

What are you talking about?

Quote:

It addition to Sigourney Weaver's three Oscar nominations, she's also a Tony-award nominee with extensive stage work going back to 1971, and as recently as last year.

Josh Gad won a Tony Award. I’d hardly call him one of the best actors I’ve ever seen.

Lots of people have won Tony’s, Oscars, etc. I would not put most of them in the same class of actors as McKellan and Stewart.

Winning a Tony award or being nominated for a Tony Award or an Oscar means exactly this: In that year, in that role, you were among the best in a particular category.

And having an extensive career means: You had an extensive career. You're either lucky, popular, hardworking, talented, or some combination of these things. Lots of people have extensive careers.

It doesn’t mean you were the best of the best compared to specific acclaimed actors over a long period of time.

Quote:

Now you may not like her work, but you can't discredit it. Because you would be wrong.

I wasn’t discrediting it. I love most of her work. But I recognize that she is not as talented as Patrick Stewart and Ian McKellan. Much in the way I recognize that MOST actors aren’t as talented as they are.

I don’t know why this is even an argument.

She's more of a CELEBRITY than they are. She’s very talented. There are a lot of talented actors out there. There are few that are anywhere near the level of talent, or command as much respect from their fellow actors, directors, and those who study the craft as Patrick Stewart and Ian McKellan.